Another anniversary of freedom lost

The Supreme Court weighed in on the Affordable Care Act a little over one year ago. This anniversary reminds me that I do not have the wealth and the power of money to influence politicians, nor do I have judicial power to make decisions that directly affect me. How wonderful that the court could not unearth a Commerce Clause rationale to hold the individual mandate constitutional if it required a fine to implement the purchase of health insurance. But thanks to a contortion of words, the court reframed the mandate as a tax on noncompliance and gave Congress its blessing.

In other words, the Court disallowed Congress under the Commerce Clause to threaten me with a penalty to coerce my purchase of health insurance, and instead ruled that the tax code be used to enforce the individual mandate.

Whether the individual mandate is enforced via tax, a penalty or a fine is irrelevant; it is still punitive and an act of government coercion, attempting to force me into a contractual agreement for government-approved health insurance. What might be next?

Could Congress create legislation that the Supreme Court would uphold, which would make physicians pay a noncompliance tax when they no longer accept Medicare patients, because they lose money to treat such patients? Thankfully, for now, the competing ideologies between the Democrat Senate majority and Republican-controlled House make such legislation unlikely.

I do not deny the great need for health care reform. Rising costs have made health care not just prohibitive but impossible for many to afford. Yet, this law is not the solution. Improved health care outcomes and timely access to appropriate medical care is not guaranteed by this law. A more likely guarantee is increased taxes, more spending, rising insurance premiums, large deductibles and rationing of care.

I should be able to freely enter into a contract with a provider of goods and/or services on a voluntary basis for an agreed upon price. It is apparent that my freedom to enter into such an agreement with a health insurance company, or not to purchase such service, has been made null and void by this decision. A compulsory contract is an oxymoron.

The court, congressional Democrats and members who voted for the legislation and President Barack Obama who signed it into law are no friend or protector of individual freedom.

Bill Webright

Anaheim

The rewards of

affordable care

Hoag Hospital is using anticipated costs of the Affordable Care Act to justify its “partnership” with St. Joseph. What are these projected costs and/or losses in income? I know Obamacare is a convenient whipping boy in Newport Beach but perhaps the problem is Hoag's current business and delivery model and not the Affordable Care Act.

The ACA will increase transparency and accountability. It will reward hospitals that perform well on quality of care measures and punish hospitals that don't. It imposes standards that focus on providing value and improving outcomes. It promotes appropriateness of care and eliminates unnecessary procedures. It penalizes hospitals for such practices as discharging patients too soon, not adequately controlling for infection and overcharging for services.

By financially encouraging preventative care and community care for ambulatory conditions and chronic diseases, it will allow hospitals to focus on services and procedures that require a hospital setting.

As a gerontologist and Newport Beach resident, I would prefer that Hoag adjust its delivery model to meet the standards laid out in the Act rather than sacrifice its autonomy and the trust of the community it serves.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.